9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax, A.P. vs. Smt. Kailasa Devi and Smt. Rukmini Bai (2) held that a notice of reassessment issued against the assessee within the period of limitation but served on the assessee after the period would be without jurisdiction and void. 2. The Department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. The mainstay of the argument of Mr. Rangayya is the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala-II and Another (3). At page 44 of the report, it was observed as follows:-- "The scheme of the Act is that an ITO must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment either by reason of the omission of failure on the part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Smt. Kailasa Devi and Smt. Rukmini Bai (2). in which a different note is clearly audible. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held in unmistakable terms that under s. 148 read with s. 149 of the IT Act, 1961, a notice under s. 148 for reassessment should not only be issued but also served within the period prescribed under s. 149 of the Act. Sitting as we are within the jurisdiction of this High Court, we are bound to follow the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in preference to the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 3. Having said so much about the conflicting decisions of various High Courts, let us examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1957 the successful candidate who was respondent 2 to the petition appeared and asked for time to file written statement. The Tribunal accordingly fixed 9th Aug., 1957 as the next date for hearing. 9th Aug., 1957 having been declared a public holiday for Civil Courts by the High Court the office of the Election Tribunal remained closed on that date and the case was taken up on 10th Aug., 1957 on which date the notice contemplated by the provision to s. 97(1) was given by the successful candidate. The Patna High Court held that 9th Aug., 1957 must be considered to be a public holiday for the purpose of the Act so as to entitle respondent No. 2 to the protection of s. 10, General Clauses Act. Since the notice required to be given by the Provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
